If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yes the game takes a bit to load, but I never noticed it taking longer than any other game. Granted the levels are smaller, but NS2 loads faster than BF3 for me. And five minutes is just exaggeration made to look like he was holding a stopwatch.

I don't think the review is incorrect about much besides the load times, price and graphics. But it's interesting that the review was pulled. The only truly non-subjective, incorrect thing was the price, which could have easily been corrected without removing the whole review. So maybe he fessed up to only giving it an hour or so. That's basically what it feels like to me... it reads like he was thinking, "Well this game probably isn't that great, I'll give it a look, find some issues, report it as a 6/10 and be done."

This reminds me of Kane and Lynch incident from 2007,when they made such a horrible review and someone got fired.

Wasn't the horrible review deserved in that instance? The issue there was that they had Kane & Lynch adverts plastered all over their website and it was suspected the publishers got pissed at them for posting a review that was negative and forced them to fire the reviewer. Not really the same as this, which seems to be that Gamespot have decided the actual quality of the review was not good enough.

Personally, I agree with Sparkasaurusmex. There didn't really seem to be much that was actually factually untrue in the glance I had over it. At worst, you could accuse the review of exaggerating some issues and giving them too much weight, but there wasn't anything that I would say I hadn't experienced a little bit myself (except the graphics, as I think the game looks fantastic.) I don't agree with his final assessment and I didn't get a sense that he really played it long enough, but I think some of the points are valid, if you are talking to a mainstream audience.

How horrible that you actually have to learn a game to master it. What are developers thinking? Investment? So 90s...

To be fair, the review has "good" points like loading times and lacking tutorials but I think they simply "overdid" it with the critizism.

I have not read the review you comment. But the game has long load times, that is true... and about the lack of a tutorial. Aim rifle at bugs and shots. Follow other marines about. This is all you need to be succesfull at the game for a beginner, and more can be learned playing. Plus there are videos and the community. I think some journalist have learned to ignore the existence of Wikis and communitys, because are used to how huge budget AAA comercial games works. Still understandable, as a criticism, but lame.

Not really,kane and lynch was quite good game with kinda flawed shooting mechanics,and kinda rushed last levels,other then that it was quite a blast,there is even a split-screen coop ! My mate and i started playing last week,allot of fun.

Otherwise screw GameSpot,they lost their credibility long ago,but its a shame that their poor review is casting bad light on such a good game (Didn't played it but i trust your opinion here on RPS).

but I think some of the points are valid, if you are talking to a mainstream audience.

You don't give a game 60 because it has longer loading times than the average shooter (shorter than than battlefield 3, shorter than almost any console game, I'll also take 40 second loading times while it preloads everything into ram over UE3 texture pop in shitting on the immersion) .
You also don't give a game created by 7 developers a 60 because it doesn't have a tutorial (it has video tutorials, I guess mr journalist was above watching videos).

I wonder what a game like Q3A would score in this day and age in the mainstream gaming press...
No singleplayer! ,no pre order bonusses! no tutorial! no matchmaking! I got owned! 5/10 , buy cod 12 now.

Dude probably never heard of it, played it for 30 mins, got owned, went back to eating doritos and gave it a 6.
But again, if it keeps gametrailers/igntards away from my beloved game it's not so bad.

The 6v6 format (or was it 5v5) brings out why I dislike the alien commander. I like the 2 gorge commanders in NS1. I guess a good commander is more proactive with healing mists. But skulks feel more zergy and whittle them now. They got time to balance it more and see how it goes.

There is no such thing as a healing mist. It's called NUTRIENT MIST. It increases maturation rate of alien structures and evolution of player eggs.IT DOES NOT HEAL

Aww, that seems silly then. Guess need to use it on Onos eggs more!

One thing I try to use more are Drifters. Great passive scouts and help break the Exo wall down with Onos attacking faster. Moving whiptails and using Shifts to move other buildings is something I need to experiment with also. I just wish the interface to select movable units was better, along with the ability to hotkey.

Same thing for Marines, MACs are awesome to get out. Keeps marines repaired and helps setup remote extractors that skulks sniped.

It's generally favorable although the reviewer didn't seem to like the game. (he said he played it for five hours in the side bar)

Okay, I've already said that I can see the valid complaint that the game is not the easiest to get into, but some the complaints just sound silly now. You play as a marine for a few rounds and just follow orders. There are a few "what the fuck should I be doing moments" at first, but "press e on the blue outlines" and "shoot the aliens" should get you by until you learn the ropes.

I'm increasingly worrying not about the state of gaming, but of the actual gamers, particular those that play and write about them for a living!